Gun ownership poll

[G1911]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Wow, talk about thinking in absolutes. Do you automatically assume that self-defense has to include killing the perpetrator? This should not need to be said, but a pro-lifer can defend him(her)self and his(her) family without resorting to killing. To think otherwise is unreasonable.

Re-read. I never said EVERY self-defense case requires lethal force. I have even said very much the opposite in this thread. Some cases do. I said that in such an eventuality, a pro-life person is not hypocritical.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

I know what the terms mean to me. Pro-life is a term people who are opposed to abortion like to call themselves in an attempt to take the high moral ground in the abortion debate. They want to claim abortion is murder and therefore they are "pro-life" in opposing abortion. They also, like Peter has done repeatedly, call people who are pro-choice, "pro-abortion." That's a pejorative term they like to label the opposition, again in an attempt to frame their argument in a more favorable light. But, just because a person likes to use "pro-life" to describe himself in regards to abortion, it doesn't mean they are truly pro-life. A more accurate term for them is anti-abortion or even anti-choice.

The pro-choice vs. pro-life dichotomy doesn't exist. It's a made-up artifice perpetrated by people who are against abortion to persuade others that they are morally superior to people who don't have the same belief about abortion that they have. That is the plain, simple truth about pro-choice vs. pro-life.

I happen to be pro-life and pro-choice. Even though being pro-life and not opposed to the death penalty makes me a hypocrite, being pro-life and pro-choice does not.

What it means to you is utterly irrelevant. If we all just decided what phrases meant for ourselves, human communication would be impossible. I am well aware all of you know the purpose of language. I am well aware that all of you understand exactly what pro-life and pro-choice means in the context of an abortion debate. How I feel about these phrases is entirely irrelevant (personally, I'm not a fan of them either). We all know what is being talked about no matter how much some of you want to pretend that you do not. Pro-life and pro-choice are opposing platforms on abortion. Stop pretending otherwise.

It's wild that we (others really, I gave no opinion on abortion itself) were having a very polite and civil discussion on abortion, and it's now starting to derail over people pretending not to know what the terms even mean. Usually it's the opinion on abortion that causes the fire, not the dictionary.


For those who claim not to know:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-life
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-choice

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

What it means to you is utterly irrelevant. If we all just decided what phrases meant for ourselves, human communication would be impossible. I am well aware all of you know the purpose of language. I am well aware that all of you understand exactly what pro-life and pro-choice means in the context of an abortion debate. How I feel about these phrases is entirely irrelevant (personally, I'm not a fan of them either). We all know what is being talked about no matter how much some of you want to pretend that you do not. Pro-life and pro-choice are opposing platforms on abortion. Stop pretending otherwise.


For those who claim not to know:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-life
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-choice

It's very relevant, and not just to me. One of the comments on the pro-life definition in response to a comment to an earlier comment: "I've been working in the pro-life cause for decades and in every definition we have ever given it has included all life from conception to natural death, but Webster's dictionary can redefine what actual pro-life people mean by the word. I am pro-life, this includes being against euthanasia, child abuse, elderly abuse, or anything else that attacks the dignity of the human life! No your the the one rewriting in order to fit a liberal agenda."

So what do you call the person who wrote the quote above? She's against euthanasia because she believes in the sanctity of life, but according to you, she can't call herself pro-life unless she is talking strictly about her stance against abortion.

I also find it very odd that a person could be "pro-life" because they're against abortion and then not give a damn about that life after it's born.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

It's very relevant, and not just to me. One of the comments on the pro-life definition in response to a comment to an earlier comment: "I've been working in the pro-life cause for decades and in every definition we have ever given it has included all life from conception to natural death, but Webster's dictionary can redefine what actual pro-life people mean by the word. I am pro-life, this includes being against euthanasia, child abuse, elderly abuse, or anything else that attacks the dignity of the human life! No your the the one rewriting in order to fit a liberal agenda."

So what do you call the person who wrote the quote above? She's against euthanasia because she believes in the sanctity of life, but according to you, she can't call herself pro-life unless she is talking strictly about her stance against abortion.

I also find it very odd that a person could be "pro-life" because they're against abortion and then not give a damn about that life after it's born.

Okay. Webster's is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to brand pro-life as an abortion term.


You know what it means, especially in the context of an abortion discussion. Stop pretending to be stupid. There are many words I don't like and wouldn't use to label things, but such is the world. Pro-life and pro-choice are both positive sounding brandings. In my little niche of the world, 'gun control' is a phrase to describe A) the use of a holster or sling with passive retention to ensure retention of my weapon or B) proper handling of my weapon and a muzzle brake to keep follow up rounds in the hitbox of my target. Does that mean I'm going to come here and pretend gun-control means lots of things and it isn't just legislation aimed at restricting firearms? I would score some virtue signaling and martyr points with some extremists on my side, but no. That would be ridiculous. Words have actual meanings, regardless of my feelings. That meaning is not whatever the hell I want it to be.


This is a very bad argument. I am greatly amused that we had an intelligent discussion in this thread about both guns and abortion that was polite and earnest while people debated the actual issue. It is only now when 2 people are pretending they don't know what common-use terms mean that its derailing.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

Okay. Webster's is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to brand pro-life as an abortion term.

Okay. And you say this, why?

Originally Posted by G1911

You know what it means, especially in the context of an abortion discussion. Stop pretending to be stupid. There are many words I don't like and wouldn't use to label things, but such is the world. Pro-life and pro-choice are both positive sounding brandings. In my little niche of the world, 'gun control' is a phrase to describe A) the use of a holster or sling with passive retention to ensure retention of my weapon or B) proper handling of my weapon and a muzzle brake to keep follow up rounds in the hitbox of my target. Does that mean I'm going to come here and pretend gun-control means lots of things and it isn't just legislation aimed at restricting firearms? I would score some virtue signaling and martyr points with some extremists on my side, but no. That would be ridiculous. Words have actual meanings, regardless of my feelings. That meaning is not whatever the hell I want it to be.

Yes, I know what it is co-opted to mean by those who are against abortion. But seriously, how can a person claim to be pro-life if he/she wants to execute people? Seriously. That's all I want to know.

Originally Posted by G1911

This is a very bad argument. I am greatly amused that we had an intelligent discussion in this thread about both guns and abortion that was polite and earnest while people debated the actual issue. It is only now when 2 people are pretending they don't know what common-use terms mean that its derailing.

This thread got derailed when abortion was thrown in the mix. Don't pretend otherwise.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

But seriously, how can a person claim to be pro-life if he/she wants to execute people? Seriously. That's all I want to know.

If you think imposing the death penalty on a convicted murderer is the same as the picture below, your a sick and disgusting person.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

If you think imposing the death penalty on a convicted murderer is the same as the picture below, your a sick and disgusting person.

Is this the scientific evidence that life begins at conception that you claimed existed and that I asked for back in post 134 or should I keep waiting?

And as to your comment, you are definitely free to conjure up a false impression of me that is not based on anything I've written. But in doing so, I think "your (sic) a sick and disgusting person."

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Is this the scientific evidence that life begins at conception that you claimed existed and that I asked for back in post 134 or should I keep waiting?

I'm not getting into that debate with someone whose political affiliation believes that men can get pregnant and that there are more than 2 genders. But you can go do your own research. There are plenty of articles based on science that support the fact the life begins at conception.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

And as to your comment, you are definitely free to conjure up a false impression of me that is not based on anything I've written. But in doing so, I think "your (sic) a sick and disgusting person."

I don't have to conjure up anything. Your ridiculous comments speak for themselves. Take a lesson from BobC and bow out...or you can keep posting and looking like a idiot. Either way, it's up to you.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

If you think imposing the death penalty on a convicted murderer is the same as the picture below, your a sick and disgusting person.

Topps has a new chase card?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Okay. And you say this, why? .

See your next point where you say pro-life has been co-opted by people who do not support abortion (generally, this is the right). Get the little joke now?

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Yes, I know what it is co-opted to mean by those who are against abortion. But seriously, how can a person claim to be pro-life if he/she wants to execute people? Seriously. That's all I want to know.

Because most people are on the whole reasonable are not absolutist hardliners in every facet. A majority of people were fine with killing Osama Bin Laden. Very few people are fine with killing a new, innocent life (abortion is a disagreement primarily on when life begins) that has done no wrong. A person who supports the death penalty does not believe EVERYONE should be executed.

This illogical and absurd argument can be made for pro-choice too. A pro-choice person supports some right to get an aboriton. They do not believe literally everyone for any reason in all issues can make any choice. They still believe in some rule of law. A pro-choice person does not support a right for me to do anything at any time for any reason.

Most people are not cartoonish hardline absolutist caricatures of a human being.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

This thread got derailed when abortion was thrown in the mix. Don't pretend otherwise.

Perhaps in the sense that it got off-topic, but it was a quite reasonable debate until BobC and you pretended not to be able to understand common words and phrases.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

See your next point where you say pro-life has been co-opted by people who do not support abortion (generally, this is the right). Get the little joke now?

Hmm, I guess some people shouldn't tell "jokes."

Originally Posted by G1911

abortion is a disagreement primarily on when life begins

That's what I said in Post 130. Aren't you following along? But anyway, if abortion is a disagreement on when life begins, why do they claim they are "pro-life" when they actually aren't?

Originally Posted by G1911

A person who supports the death penalty does not believe EVERYONE should be executed.

Who said they did? But tell you what, when a group gets together that wants to

1) redefine death so that a person incapable of breathing and eating on their own is declared legally dead;

2) make it illegal to use life support systems despite a loved one's objection;

3) is against the death penalty; and

4) call their group Pro-Death to gain support

get back to me.

Originally Posted by G1911

This illogical and absurd argument can be made for pro-choice too. A pro-choice person supports some right to get an aboriton. They do not believe literally everyone for any reason in all issues can make any choice. They still believe in some rule of law. A pro-choice person does not support a right for me to do anything at any time for any reason.

Fair point.

Originally Posted by G1911

Most people are not cartoonish hardline absolutist caricatures of a human being.

I'm not sure whether I agree with "most." The jury is still out on that one.

Originally Posted by G1911

Perhaps in the sense that it got off-topic, but it was a quite reasonable debate until BobC and you pretended not to be able to understand common words and phrases.

It's not that I "pretended not to be able to understand common words and phrases," it's more that I don't agree with using the term pro-life in that manner. So far, nobody has even attempted to answer the question, how can they be "pro-life" when they're not? Just like I don't agree with Russia using the term "special military operation" for their invasion of Ukraine. Should we all just acquiesce and call it a "special military operation" because it's their invasion and that's what they want to call it?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

That's what I said in Post 130. Aren't you following along? But anyway, if abortion is a disagreement on when life begins, why do they claim they are "pro-life" when they actually aren't?

For something like the twelfth time, because it is not an absolutist philosophy of the universe, it is one of the two main sides in a much narrower debate.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Who said they did? But tell you what, when a group gets together that wants to

1) redefine death so that a person incapable of breathing and eating on their own is declared legally dead;

2) make it illegal to use life support systems despite a loved one's objection;

3) is against the death penalty; and

4) call their group Pro-Death to gain support

get back to me.

Again, for something like the thirteenth time, it is not an absolutist philosophy of the universe, it is one of the two main sides in a much narrower debate. You know this.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

I'm not sure whether I agree with "most." The jury is still out on that one.

This is where many extremes and many of our current problems come from - people who disagree are no longer seen as people with a different idea but almost cartoonish caricatures of an actual human being. I miss when people didn't live life convinced the other 50% are cartoon villains.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

It's not that I "pretended not to be able to understand common words and phrases," it's more that I don't agree with using the term pro-life in that manner. So far, nobody has even attempted to answer the question, how can they be "pro-life" when they're not? Just like I don't agree with Russia using the term "special military operation" for their invasion of Ukraine. Should we all just acquiesce and call it a "special military operation" because it's their invasion and that's what they want to call it?

Again, for something like the fourteenth time, it is not an absolutist philosophy of the universe, it is one of the two main sides in a much narrower debate of a specific issue. It is a silly hyper partisan argument (you don't seem to keep complaining about the equally incorrect term 'pro-choice' if your pre-suppositions that these are absolutist philosophies of the universe and not what they are defined as in the dictionary and by 99%+ of America).

In other shocking news, you don't really drive in a driveway, you park in it. You know what these two terms actually mean, you know they are not absolutist philosophies of other separate issues. You are just complaining about the one that the other side uses. That's not a reasonable and consistent thought, it's just a hyperpartisan talking point that doesn't say much of anything.

"Special military operation" is not a common-use term whose meaning is known to all and commonly used above any other expression for what it is in reference too, steeped in decades of the common vernacular. I have not heard a single American use this to refer to the war, besides mocking it. This is a bad false equivalence.

Abortion is an issue for which there are rational arguments supporting both sides. I cannot fathom why this is the abortion-related argument that seems the best one to make to you. Virtue-signaling to absolutists has never convinced a person you are right; rational arguments sometimes do.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

This illogical and absurd argument can be made for pro-choice too. A pro-choice person supports some right to get an aboriton. They do not believe literally everyone for any reason in all issues can make any choice. They still believe in some rule of law. A pro-choice person does not support a right for me to do anything at any time for any reason.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Fair point.

After thinking about it, I realize I was wrong. I shouldn't have said "Fair point."

Believing in having choices and rule of law do not contradict each other. Since you like to point these things out, let me point out to you that that's a false equivalency. You can believe in freedom of choice and rule of law.

I believe everyone should have any choice for any situation.

That doesn't mean there can't be adverse consequences for certain choices/decisions. Some choices/decisions can result in the restrictions of future choices, i.e., prison.

But you do have me curious. What choice do you think nobody should have, i.e., what choice do you want to take away from everybody?